Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.C.LATHIFF, S/O.MOIDU versus THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.C.LATHIFF, S/O.MOIDU v. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Crl MC No. 444 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 3716 (20 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 444 of 2006()

1. K.C.LATHIFF, S/O.MOIDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :20/02/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.444 of 2006

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2007

ORDER

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in a prosecution, inter alia, under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The 1st accused was found guilty and convicted. The 2nd accused was not available for trial and the petitioner/the 3rd accused was found not guilty and convicted. There is a vehicle involved, of which the petitioner is the owner, which was allegedly used for the purpose of commission of the offence. By Annexure-I judgment, under which the 1st accused was convicted and the 3rd accused was acquitted, there was a direction that the jeep concerned shall be forfeited. The petitioner/the 3rd accused was directed to produce the jeep. Thereafter, Annexure-II notice was issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner to pay the bond amount. It was at that stage that the petitioner came before this Court. The petitioner raised the contention that Annexure-I judgment had been appealed against.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-I judgment has since been set aside by Annexure-III judgment. The appeal was allowed and the 1st accused has been found not guilty and acquitted. Annexure-I was thus set aside. Annexure-III order is obviously issued on the basis of Annexure-I judgment and the direction contained therein. Crl.M.C.No.444 of 2006 2

3. It is for the petitioner now to appear before the learned Magistrate and explain to the learned Magistrate that Annexure-II order does not deserve to be complied with in view of the later judgment in Annexure-III. The petitioner can make all the relevant representations before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders thereafter.

4. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Crl.M.C can be dismissed with the above observations as agreed.

5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, dismissed subject of course to the above observations.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- Crl.M.C.No.444 of 2006 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.